Bring on the popularity contest

// Published June 22, 2008
in
Boston Globe

A FUNNY thing happens when elections really matter: Voters go to the
polls in droves. Such was the case during the long battle between Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton, which produced record turnout in Democratic
contests from coast to coast.

The dynamic will change in November, when perhaps a dozen states will be
battlegrounds in the presidential race. And that's why the state
Legislature should pass the National Popular Vote bill, which commits a
state to throwing its electoral votes to whoever gets the most votes
nationwide. While Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker
Salvatore DiMasi both support the bill, it may not pass before the end of
the legislative session next month.

The measure would only take effect if adopted by states representing a
majority of the Electoral College, and proponents aren't likely to reach
that threshold this year. In the future, though, the plan would eliminate
the most obvious flaw in the current system: that the candidate with the
most votes can still lose, as Al Gore did in 2000. A major side benefit
is that the plan would widen future presidential races to all 50 states.
While election turnout depends heavily on a state's laws, the dearth of
campaigning in sure states has its consequences. Four years ago, turnout
among voting-age adults was lowest in California and Hawaii, where John
Kerry won easily. Turnout was highest in Minnesota, where Kerry won with
only 51 percent, and Wisconsin, where George W. Bush barely squeaked past
50 percent.

Under the National Popular Vote plan, a vote in deep-blue Massachusetts
or deep-red Utah would count as much as a vote in Michigan or Ohio.
Candidates would feel less obliged to make policy zigzags to appease
swing-state special interests. Anti-Castro hardliners in Florida and
steel interests in Pennsylvania might not enjoy the same outsized
influence. But for voters, the benefits would be enormous.